M14 Shooter said:Wow.
"We dont have any better idea, so we teach this as fact."
THAT'S solid.
Seems to me, ID explains everything.
And, its entirely possible that ID happened in such a way that supports evolution.
But the fact of the matter is, Evolution isnt a fact, and teaching it as such in a strong example of intellectual dishonesty.
Yeah.nkgupta80 said:we're not teaching it as a fact, a lot of science is not fact. But you don't go on telling them this may nmot be right again and agian. Its a waste of time.
You dont see the epistimological hole here?Evolution is pretty damn close to a fact, and since there is no alternative (Evolution works the best).
Evolution doesnt explain that, either.ID doesn't explain any genetical or biological phenomena other than by saying a creating force created it. WOW.
Whats your point?Introducing the factor of a higher being into science completely negates all scientific inquiry. If I can attribute life to an intelligent designer, then why not black holes or star formation or particle physics. Hell I'll have the answer to everything: intelligent designer.
M14 Shooter said:Yeah.
Lets not tell them the truth, and then let them make up their own minds as to if its a waste of time or not.
how is evolution ont the truth. From the results shown in applications of evolution in research, and the way it helps us undersand biological, medical, and genetic phenomena and processes, evolution seems very true. Can creationism ever tell us why an animal behaves the way it does? Or why one protein is similar to another? Or why the cell processes in bacteria can be emulated in humans? no not at all.
You dont see the epistimological hole here?
"we're teaching you this and we're letting you think its a fact for no reason other than we dont have a better explanation"?
That borders the absurd.
No, we're not teaching other alternatives because there rae none. Read my last paragraph of how intelligent design just doesn't cut it as an alternative in science. It is not applicable in research and understanding of detailed biology.
We're teaching evolution because it is THE BEST explanation. You can argue against it all you want, but frankly, evolution is what has give us the understanding to undertake the research that has lead to great discoveries in the past century. Of course people who don't try to understand it may end up trying ot prove it wrong. I find that stupid.
Evolution doesnt explain that, either.
Genetic/biologic phenomenon stand on their own.
what the hell are you talking about....of course genetic and biologic phenomena are tied. Its this very relationship that has boosted medical and biological research these last 150 years. Without evolution, we wouldn't be very far in our research and discoveries.
Whats your point?
If its true - so what?
my point is that you can't introduce intelligent design into science. It completely destroys scientific inquiry. Tell me, why can't I tell kids that theory of relativity is only a thoery, and that an alternate is an intelligent designer controlling every movement. I could also tell kids that since theory of gravity is not complete, our only alternative is that an intelligent being controls gravity. Maybe I'll be letting them think for themselves.
Secondly, ur statement about it being true is totally up to the person. I could say that I don't believe that there is an intelligent designer, and you'd be at a loss to prove it to me. There are many great scientists who do believe in a god and evolution. Howveer, when it comes to research, they'd prob never be considering an intelligent designer in their calculuations, in their hypotntific community. Science is the objective study of the physical realities around us. Leave god's role to philosophy.
Because its a theoiry, not a fact.how is evolution ont the truth.
"Seems very true".From the results shown in applications of evolution in research, and the way it helps us undersand biological, medical, and genetic phenomena and processes, evolution seems very true.
Even if thats true - so what?Can creationism ever tell us why an animal behaves the way it does? Or why one protein is similar to another? Or why the cell processes in bacteria can be emulated in humans? no not at all.
Clearly, thats not true.No, we're not teaching other alternatives because there rae none.
Only for he closed-minded.my point is that you can't introduce intelligent design into science. It completely destroys scientific inquiry.
You can. No reason you can't.Tell me, why can't I tell kids that theory of relativity is only a thoery, and that an alternate is an intelligent designer controlling every movement.
Psst...I could also tell kids that since theory of gravity is not complete, our only alternative is that an intelligent being controls gravity. Maybe I'll be letting them think for themselves.
Just as you cannot prove evolution...Secondly, ur statement about it being true is totally up to the person. I could say that I don't believe that there is an intelligent designer, and you'd be at a loss to prove it to me.
Because its a theoiry, not a fact.
And the comment about 'tellig them thruth' refers to telling that it is a theory, rather than glossing over the fact that it is a theory.
"Seems very true".
Please compare and contrast the term "seems very true" to "is true:.
When you do that, you'll see the point of my disagreement with you.
Even if thats true - so what?
Does that mean its not how things got here?
No, not at all.
Only for he closed-minded.
For the open minded, it on;ly broadens the area worth inquiring about.
Are you closed-minded?
You can. No reason you can't.
Psst...
Gravity is a physical law, not a theory.
you just glossed over my whole spiel on how evolutoin has been an important concept in medical, biological, and genetic research in the last 150 yeras. When one can correctly apply a theory and by applying it, accurately predict the outcomes, the theory gains validity. Evolution has done that in COUNTLESS applications.Just as you cannot prove evolution...
M14 Shooter said:"Seems very true".
Please compare and contrast the term "seems very true" to "is true:.
When you do that, you'll see the point of my disagreement with you.
Only for he closed-minded.
For the open minded, it on;ly broadens the area worth inquiring about.
Are you closed-minded?
Just as you cannot prove evolution...
Just wondering exactly what data, scientific or otherwise, would support divine anything.SKILMATIC said:Well I never argued that it should be taught in a science class did I? I just said there was scientific data that would support a devine creation. I think there should be a religions course in our public schools. That way they are prepared for the wolrd religions class that is needed in your humanities section. Besides it wouldnt hurt having a common knowledge of them. But this is just my opinion.
Kenneth T. Cornelius said:Just wondering exactly what data, scientific or otherwise, would support divine anything.
OdgenTugbyGlub said:Thats the problem with trying to get rid of creationism, everything is "proof" to them cause everything "came from god".
Yes, the existence of life can be seen as very very weak evidence but not proof.OgdenTG said:Thats the problem with trying to get rid of creationism, everything is "proof" to them cause everything "came from god".
My diety, Comedeao the Almighty, created the universe by accident one day when he was floating around in an abyss and belched, then, he blew his nose, and out of his nose galaxies with planets formed.
Then he decided to create little pawns for his enjoyment, so he scratched his skin with a fingernail and flakes of his dead skin formed into humans.
That is how life on Earth Began
-Demosthenes- said:And evidence for the Great Spagetti Monster:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
So it is evidence, although it is very, very weak, and can be evidence for just about anything.
Rhadamanthus said:I say cut both evolution and creationism in school. Let kids figure out what they believe on their own.
Rhadamanthus said:I say cut both evolution and creationism in school. Let kids figure out what they believe on their own.
zk655 said::shock:
Yeah why not? Heck maybe we can cut out english, history, math, and reading as well.
Afterall wont Kids figure it out on their own?
Your claim is false. The existence of Evolution is a FACT. It has been directly observed, there is scientific, accurate, specific data sets proving its occurance, just like there is specific data sets proving the existence of Gravity. (The data sets have shown the force relationships to be in constant proportions, hence it is also described as a natural law.)M14 Shooter said:Evolution is a theory; gravity is a physical law.
Nope. That would be a hypothesis. That would not be a Scientific Theory. It seems that your understanding of the processes involved in the Scientific Method is woefully inadequate. I would suggest you read up on the details of the Scientific Method before making any such remarks about what science is.Evolution -as- a theory was derived through inductive reasoning, where you take a limited data set, look for patterns within that set, and apply it to the world in general. To subcribe to Evolution as the Way Things Got Here is to have faith that the induction is correct -- that is, you must 'believe'.
Given the evidence supporting evolution so far, you might as well walk into any given classroom in any given school, see what color the chairs are, and then declare that all the chairs in all the classrooms in all the schools follow the same pattern.
The OCCURRENCE of Evolution very much is a fact. But the Scientific Theories never are "fact," ANY of them.Teaching evolution as a theory is fine, but teaching it as fact is not.
But then NO Scientific Theory is a fact ever. So What is your point?M14 Shooter said:I think I explained that:
Evolution is a theory, not fact.
Therefore it cannot be taught as fact.
Well, it claims that "something happened," that's all. there is no evidence for it, there is no science involved, it is pure speculation, it is creationist wishful thinking presented dishonestly as factual or scientific.M14 Shooter said:Seems to me, ID explains everything.
No.And, its entirely possible that ID happened in such a way that supports evolution.
The OCCURENCE of Evolution very much is a fact. All the data sets are factual.But the fact of the matter is, Evolution isnt a fact, and teaching it as such in a strong example of intellectual dishonesty.
The very process of their change is an example of Evolution. And per the Scientific Theory of Evolution, we can make predictions for when and how changes occur. That's the evidence for the Scientific Theory.M14 Shooter said:Evolution doesnt explain that, either.
Genetic/biologic phenomenon stand on their own.
So, if all structures and changes are created by a designer, then their occurence has no natural presense. When bacteria develope resistence to antibiotics, it is done by a designer, no evolution occured. So we can't prepare and generate new antibiotics to treat the infection. f.ex.Whats your point?
If its true - so what?
It is clear that you have no clue about what the Scientific Method is. Science Class is the teaching of applying the Scientific Method. ID can not be evaluated through the Scientific Method. Hence, it is as useful as teaching in math class that 2+2=smurf. It simply has no relevance to the realityM14 Shooter said:Only for he closed-minded.
For the open minded, it on;ly broadens the area worth inquiring about.
Are you closed-minded?
Psst...
Gravity is a physical law, not a theory.{/quote]Psst, our claim is false, you are showing your incredible ignorance of Science.
The actual, observed events ofEvolution are very much proven. And the Scientific Theory of Evolution is as "proven" as all other Scientific Theories.Just as you cannot prove evolution...
Rhadamanthus said:I say cut both evolution and creationism in school. Let kids figure out what they believe on their own.
argexpat said:Rhadamanthus,
Your comment belies an ignorance of what science is. Scientists don't "believe" things; they try to explain how the universe works without resorting to supernatural explanations, by employing the scientific method, a rigorous epistemological protocol involving the use of logic, reason, hypothesis and experimentation. If a hypothesis, through peer review, observation and experimentation, proves to be inadequate to explain a phenomenon, or just plain wrong, it will either be augmented, or scrapped all together for a new hypothesis, which then is subjected to the same grueling scientific method. This process is repeated over and over again, and is called scientific progress. It's why you're not likely to die of the Plague, and what produced the medium we're communicating on right now.
And evolution through natural selection has been subjected to this process for 150 years, and has passed with flying colors. Evolution is now the cornerstone of, and been verified by, dozens of branches of science.
Religion, on the other hand, is a "belief" and is not the product of a rigorous epistemological process. It's predicated on unquestioned faith, in other words, dogma.
So, to propose that we throw out evolution from the science class simply because some Christians can't reconcile their religious dogma with science is, well, moronic. If you had your way, humanity would still be trying to figure out where fire comes from. No, wait, it comes from God, of course!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?